In re Dakotta P.
Filed 10/6/06 In re Dakotta P. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re DAKOTTA P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAKOTTA P., Defendant and Appellant. |
F049568
(Super. Ct. No. JJD055151-02)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.
Thomas M. Singman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and John A. Bachman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant, Dakotta P., was readjudged a ward of the court after he admitted petition allegations charging him with three counts of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) and one count of battery (Pen. Code, § 242). On January 3, 2006, the court aggregated time from prior sustained petitions and committed Dakotta to the California Youth Authority (CYA)[1] for a maximum term of confinement of six years. On appeal, Dakotta contends the court misunderstood its discretion to impose a lesser maximum term of confinement. We will find merit to this contention and remand the matter for further proceedings. In all other respects, we will affirm.
FACTS
The Instant Petition
On September 16, 2005, while detained at juvenile hall Dakotta and another juvenile repeatedly punched a third juvenile.
On October 17, 24, and 30, 2005, Dakotta stuffed clothes down the toilet in his cell and flooded the entire unit, including his cell.
On November 21, 2005, a petition was filed charging Dakotta with three counts of felony vandalism and one count of misdemeanor battery. The petition also included written notice that the People intended to move to increase Dakotta’s maximum term of confinement by aggregating the terms of all previously sustained petitions.
On December 13, 2005, Dakotta admitted the battery offense and the three vandalism offenses as misdemeanors.
On January 3, 2006, the court followed the probation report’s recommendation and committed Dakotta to CYA for a maximum term of confinement of six years calculated as follows: three years for an aggregated evading a police officer offense, four months each for the three underlying vandalism offenses, two months for the underlying battery offense, four months for an aggregated vandalism offense, two months for an aggregated hit-and-run driving offense, eight months for an aggregated battery committed to promote a street gang offense, four months for a battery committed on school grounds offense, and two terms of two months for two possession of drug paraphernalia offenses.
DISCUSSION
Dakotta contends the court erred in calculating his maximum term of confinement because it did not understand that it had discretion to impose less than the maximum term that could be imposed on an adult. Respondent concedes and we agree.
In In re Jacob J. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 429, the court held that “where, . . . the juvenile court sets the maximum term of physical confinement at CYA at the maximum term of an adult confinement, the record must show the court did so after considering the particular facts and circumstances of the matter before it.” (Id. at p. 438.) The record here does not reflect that the juvenile court considered the facts and circumstances of Dakotta’s case before setting his maximum term of confinement. Accordingly, we will remand the matter to the juvenile court so that it may do so.
DISPOSITION
The order committing the minor to CYA is reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to set a maximum term of physical confinement based upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Hill, J.
[1] The CYA was renamed the Division of Juvenile Justice of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation effective July 1, 2005, (Gov. Code, §§ 12838, subd. (a), & 12838.3). We will retain the designation CYA as referenced by the trial court.
